The 90's wasnt a mugfest, 90-95 was as good as today: late Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Becker plus Courier Edberg Krajicek sometimes, Chang maybe even Ivanisevic on grass was as good as today, at least., or better.

It was harder to dominate back then, but easier to sneak a slam if you were an expert on one surface.

It's harder to sneak a slam now, but easier to dominate across the board if you can because of the homogenised surfaces.

well, you play the cards you are dealt.

ASI Director-General Gautam Sengupta said the list of India's treasures held abroad was "too long to handle" and there was a need for a "diplomatic and legal campaign" for their restitution from institutions, including the British Museum, the Royal Collection and the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery.

Whilst the very top of the game looks strong, when you go below say top 10 the depth is sparse. Only explanation for Monaco being top 10, Troicki almost being top 10 and Bogomolov being a GS seed. This shit wouldn't happen in previous eras. Bogomuglov is the worst GS seed ever probably.

Yeah, at the moment you basically have 7 players who have any hope of doing any impact in big events, no one even gives players in the fringes of the top 10 like Gasquet, Tipsarevic or Almagro even much chance of reaching a Slam semi let alone be strong contenders for anything, that shows there's clear lack of depth at the moment.

Just going by slams, and giving Wimbledon 10, RG and USO 9, AO 8, yields 55 for Becker, 54 for Edberg, 51 for Djokovic. Djokovic is close but not yet there; one more slam and he has them. Sounds about right to me.

And: in my book this is the one of strongest era in mens' tennis, arguably the best of my lifetime. Late 70s are close, then come late 80s. While it's one of the weaker eras in ladies' tennis (although 5 years ago it was even worse). Btw, eras can't be assessed by 'who would beat who'- for this circumstances are too different - but by the level and the intensity of the competition.

maybe not Courier but Chang?LOL...........Chang wouldn't make top 10 today.........he would be destroyed every day on every surface all year long

Of course not. Chang won a slam as a 17 year he was one of the biggest phenomenon, very fast, agile and with amazing hands...he was competitive until he was 23/24 and was as high as 2nd in the rankings. I dont see how I cannot compare Chang of 17-21 years old with Ferrer of 26-29 yo. They are very similar players. I also fail to see how Ferrer could be a top 10 player in the late 80s with less string technologies and having to face many good servers, well, Chang did it. Different tennis, but he did it with different strategies.

Chang was a pest, Agassi hated facing him, he got tired later but remained a good competitor throughout all 90's first decade, he was a model for many small tennis players to play in hard courts, Chang is very interesting imo, you can say hes worst than Murray or Djoko but certainly is as good as Ferrer, Tipsa, whatever small guy you have in top10.

90's were a weak era, Sampras servebotting Wimbledon and USO, but puking all over courts when match took more than two hours. Clown on clay, who used his fail serve and volley, when even a casual tennis fan you need solid topspin ground game not mindless net rushing and all or nothing ball bashing. RG in the 90's was as bad as it's on WTA today, every year new winner and not because of diverse field, but because of mugs stinking up the courts. One slam flukes like Ivanisievic, Krajicek and Chang making top 5 Washed up Becker, Lendl and Edberg Clownpras no competition at all, esp in late 90's except Drugassi who was winning slams until mid 30's, still failed to win RG because of one dimensional S&V game, got bageled by Clownfelnikov on clay Tsonga/Ferrer/Berdych/Soderling > 90's players like Chang/Krajicek etc easy. Nadal/Olderer/Djoker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Servepras and Drugassi

Just going by slams, and giving Wimbledon 10, RG and USO 9, AO 8, yields 55 for Becker, 54 for Edberg, 51 for Djokovic. Djokovic is close but not yet there; one more slam and he has them. Sounds about right to me.

And: in my book this is the strongest era in mens' tennis of my lifetime. Late 70s are close, then come late 80s. While it's one of the weaker eras in ladies' tennis (coming back though, 5 years ago was worse). Btw, eras can't be assessed by 'who would beat who'- for this circumstances are too different - but by the level and the intensity of the competition.